Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Israel lobby in the United States


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   no consensus. Upon reading through the discussion, it seems there are 19 editors, including the nominator, explicitly pushing for deletion, with 11 others arguing to keep the article. As AfD is not a vote, these numbers mean little. The nominator's main concerns, as well as those of subsequent participants, stem from WP:POV and WP:COATRACK. On the other hand, many, though not by any means all of the keep "votes" fail to address the aforementioned concerns. In closing the discussion, I give these opinions little weight. POV is a serious issue; however, the article covers a seemingly notable topic, and can be made more neutral and encyclopedic through editing. Deletion should, in general, be the last resort. Indeed, the article has apparently changed quite substantially since it was nominated. Taking all this into consideration, I feel "no consensus" is the only practical outcome, with no prejudice towards either a merge discussion or a renomination if the article isn't cleaned up within the next few months. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 16:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Israel lobby in the United States

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

WP:POVFORK largely consisting of a WP:COATRACK of opinion pieces criticizing a number of organizations and living persons of being "anti-Israel". What relevant material that is in here can go in Arab lobby in the United States and articles on the individual organizations and people named  nableezy  03:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as nom, also left out of nom that the pages very purpose is in violation of WP:NPOV, as it is not neutral to label any of the organizations or people mentioned as anti-Israel as that is not how they are usually classified. A few people, mostly those who see these organizations and people as political adverseries, have used the term to describe them. The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee article shows how this is dealt with in a NPOV manner, with due weight given to the criticism. This article is being used to search high and low for somebody calling some organization "anti-Israel" and throw them all together into one big sinister bogeyman.  nableezy  - 03:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  -- Nableezy - 03:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions.  -- Nableezy - 03:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions.  -- Nableezy - 03:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions.  -- Nableezy - 03:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions.  -- Nableezy - 03:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  -- Nableezy - 03:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- Nableezy - 03:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

*Keep  see below There has been a recognized anti-Israel lobby movement that goes beyond the scape of the Arab lobbyists. I think it is a bit premature to delete an article that has a lot of potential. These sorts of articles tend to solicit strong emotions that might not reflect a genuine concern for the article's unique content. Remember, pro-Israel lobbies in the United States do not describe themselves as PRO-ISRAEL SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP (caps are on purpose) but rather "concerned citizens for the welfare of Israel and its security blah blah..." Yet the articles on Israel lobbies have taken the shape of how its enemies portray them. This is perfectly acceptable (as long as it meets policy) and I don't see why it should be limited to articles that are critical of the state. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: Basically a WP:attack page and not really encyclopedic. Because this article wasd created at the same time Israel lobby in the United States was changed (temporarily) to Pro-Israel lobby in the United States this looks like a partisan, POV attempt to use wikipedia to help create a false divide of either you are Pro or Anti Israel, with nothing in between. Wikipedia should not be used in this fashion. This is very much against the resolutions of Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles.CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Anti-Israel lobby is not necessarily "Arab lobby" as nominator suggests. This is essentially an Anti-Zionist movement. If we have Israel lobby in the United States, why can not we have "anti-Israel lobby"? Notable and sourced.Biophys (talk) 03:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There is an article called Anti-Zionism which, while not perfect, does at least use a phrase that many groups use to describe themselves. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm torn on this one.  It's unquestionable that there is a cluster of people, ideologies, and organizations in America that oppose Israel as a state and a people in a broad sense rather than being incidentally or casually critical.  So the phenomenon itself is real.  Further, there is a concept among many American supporters of Israel that this opposition is some form of prejudice with motivations that go beyond the issues at hand.  So the concept is a real concept, whether or not it is true.  There are many, many sources for this.  So a reasonably good, informative article could be written about this, just as there is a decent article about Anti-Americanism.  The article as it now stands needs a lot of work, as many will no doubt say.  But weak articles are improved, not deleted.  And difficult subjects are dealt with through good editing, not avoidance.  The question here shouldn't be whether the article is inherently non-notable, redundant, or a coatrack.  It is not inherently so. The question is whether the article as it now stands is salvageable or whether it is better to delete the whole thing and try again (or not).  Wikidemon (talk) 04:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Part of me agrees, and in fact there are good reasons (including libertarian/anarchist ones) for being "anti-Israel" as well as "anti-Zionist." However, WP:RS demands that WP:RS or groups/individuals describe themselves as "anti-Israel" and the WP:RS that do are mostly extremely pro-Israel. And few groups/individuals describe themselves thusly. So there are major POV/BLP issues because of the nature of the sources. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't keep "Israel lobby" is OK as a title because it has been used by mainstream scholarship and the people and organizations themselves. ("Pro-Israel" is worth discussing). Aipac very prominently calls itself "America's Pro-Israel Lobby". Anti-Israel has not been so used and is intrinsically offensive and unsuitable as a title.  Reverse things.  Should wikipedia have an article on the Anti-Arab lobby airing accusations, made non-neutrally and with heavy helpings of OR, that mainstream Jewish or pro-Israel organizations form an anti-Arab lobby whose purpose is not really to support the state of Israel, but to victimize Arabs or Palestinians (just for the hell of it, I guess)? Should there be an article covering the NAACP, CORE, SNCC as an anti-white lobby, even if one finds sources?  Merging whatever is worthwhile to Anti-Zionism or Arab lobby in the United States, would be one way, followed by a redirect to one of these.  Deleting would be another.  Keeping, as is, is unacceptable and conflicts with neutrality and naming policy.John Z (talk) 04:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * delete. coatrack, pointy, not neutral.  john z put it best.   untwirl (talk) 05:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Radical suggestion: Let's merge this with Israel lobby in the United States and call the article Middle East lobbying in the United States. The truth is that there is a lot of interesting material here, there is a small but growing lobby sitting on the other side of the political fence from AIPAC, and it deserves to be covered in the wikipedia.  I think we could put together a fine article covering the political forces affecting US Middle East policy. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What little in the article not sourced to opinion pieces could be salvaged into an article like that. But as it currently stands just classifying a bunch of people and organizations, some of who cannot rightly be described as lobbies much less anti-Israel, and part of an "anti-Israel" lobby on the basis of the opinion of a political opponent is not exactly abiding by WP:NPOV, or more importantly, for the living people in the article, by WP:BLP. That is like making an article socialist movement in America and including the Democratic Party on the basis of the opinion of some Republican strategist. But that suggestion seems fine to me, ideal even.  nableezy  - 05:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Israel lobby in the United States article already is watered down enough, not even citing history of its actions over time. And Arab lobby in the United States already exists. And of course there is Anti-Zionism. Not to mention Category:Non-governmental_organizations_involved_in_the_Israeli-Palestinian_peace_process and Category:Foreign policy political advocacy groups in the United States. (Sources for this attack article probably would consider all those groups "anti-Israel.") What few pieces of NPOV useful info there are in this article could be integrated into those articles. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Now I've noticed there already is a Anti-Israel movements article (which also needs an AfD). And it has a Category:Anti-Israel which was deleted! CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge with Israel lobby in the United States per Ravpapa's suggestion. --GHcool (talk) 06:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Pending (things have changed, see below) per my panic post here. Thanks for the assistance from more knowledgeable editors.  I will also positively consider some form of Ravpapa's intriguing suggestion, not as a solution, but on its own, with 'history'.  CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 06:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge per Ravpapa's and GHcool. I like the idea, but it would be dependent on an article move and I'm not sure if that is possible. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment If the info is accurate you may keep or merge. I didn't check the contents. Also note generally, claiming an organisation is pro ... like pro Palestine or pro Israel is easier, less offensive and requires less proof and RS than calling an organisation is anti ... like anti-Arab or anti-semitic which requires vast RS. Kasaalan (talk) 10:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Anti-israel is somewhere in the middle so consensus might be needed. Also don't delete the content if the entries are accurate and merge, don't waste editing time. Kasaalan (talk) 11:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong delete - The term is not used by mainstream scholarship, and whatever currency this term happens to have does not require its own article. Wikipedia is not a place to develop neologisms to push a certain point of view. The current article instead gives us the term as a POV fork, which is deletable under current policy. PasswordUsername (talk) 13:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:POVFORK. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - the article lists more than a dozen references using the term. I wonder if those alleging that 'The term is not used by mainstream scholarship' have bothered to look at the article or its references, which include Jewish polity and American civil society, a book edited by 3 academics, one of them a Yale professor, published by academic press Rowman & Littlefield, which includes an entire chapter devoted to "anti-israel lobby". LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 14:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Except that the essay in that book is just written by one Martin J. Raffel, a pro-Israel activist. The other "reputable sources" used as cover for the subject, such as the 1985 New York Times article, do not even use the term. Oh, and there's an opinion column written in the Wall Street Journal - "Antisemitism and the Anti-Israel Lobby". Still a POV fork. PasswordUsername (talk) 15:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 3 notable academics found the article worthy of inclusion in their work of mainstream scholarship, and an academic publisher found it worthy of publication by its press. Think what you will of the author's activism, it is simply false to assert that 'The term is not used by mainstream scholarship'. If this is a POV fork, what has it been forked off from? LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 15:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Arab lobby in the United States, Anti-Zionism and the various articles of the groups named as part of this supposed "anti-Israel lobby".  nableezy  - 15:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Really? which reliable source has described American Friends Service Committee as part of the Arab lobby in the United Sates? The explicit premise of this article is that anti-Israel is not the same as pro-Arab. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 15:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you notice where I said 'and the various articles of the groups named as part of this supposed "anti-Israel lobby".'?  nableezy  - 15:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * yes I saw that. An article can't be a fork from multiple articles. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 16:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, you can create POV forks by shoving various claims to promote a certain POV from various articles into one POV-loaded one... That's how it's done here. PasswordUsername (talk) 17:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That would be a violation of WP:SYNTH, but not a POV fork. It's a moot point, tough, since we have numerous references which explicitly refer to an 'anti-Israel lobby'. That's not any more POV than having an article about a Pro-Israel lobby. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC).
 * Yes, as a loaded article it's certainly full of WP:SYNTH, which advances its arguments by jumping to position C from claim A and claim B. It would still be a POV fork in its own right even without the jumps because it takes one-sided content from various other articles where things are not given as one-sidedly, and presents pieces of that content for its own purposes. PasswordUsername (talk) 18:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If there are WP:SYNTH violations in the article, we can fix them, but that is not a reason for deletion. The article was not forked off of any article that I am aware of, and lists numerous references which make the case that an anti-Israel lobby exists, distinct from an Pro-Arab lobby. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 18:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Attack page, with little in the way of real substantive evidence that this concept is treated seriously in reliable sources.  It is occasionally mentioned by some (usually on the far right) but there is no scholarly treatment of it the way there is of an Israel lobby.  At best, merge with similar pages (e.g. the Arab lobby one).  Or make it a footnote or section on the Israel lobby page.  But as it is this is a POV fork. csloat (talk) 15:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 3 notable academics found the article worthy of inclusion in their work of mainstream scholarship, and an academic publisher found it worthy of publication by its press. It is simply false to assert that 'there is no scholarly treatment of it '. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 16:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's one book and it's not at all clear that it's considered "mainstream scholarship." If that was all there was to the "Israel Lobby" I would feel the same way -- not a notable concept.  The more I think about it the more this belongs as a footnote to "Israel lobby" since it seems to be a reaction to people who have written about that. csloat (talk) 21:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * A Yale professor published by an academic press is not mainstream scholarship? That is certainly an interesting view. I wonder what would qualify as mainstream, if this does not. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 22:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Some Yale professors published in some presses are mainstream, sure. But it's not at all clear whether the one you're referencing is.  Please don't ever distort my words again, it's very disconcerting.  Again, even if we do decide this is mainstream, this is one book.  If all you've got on this is one book, the case is pretty much closed - this doesn't merit an article. csloat (talk) 23:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see how I've distorted your words at all. You questioned whether this book, by a Yale professor published by an academic press counts as "mainstream scholarship". That view seems bizarre to me, but perhaps you can explain what would make it 'non-mainstream', when it prima facie is. Of course, this book is not all we have - the article lists some 2 dozen references, and counting. This book was presented as a single example disproving your false claim that "there is no scholarly treatment" of the subject. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 23:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In order to establish the case that this is "mainstream" you need to provide evidence, not assert it as prima facie. Again, even if it is, one scholarly source isn't enough - sorry, this doesn't cut it for me, even given your "2 dozen" non-scholarly references mostly from members of the same right wing clique.  We're not gonna change each other's minds; no offense, but it's probably best to drop it. csloat (talk) 16:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. There's a "pro-Israel" lobby, and an "anti-Israel" lobby, as we can clearly see even in these discussion pages. It seems to me that the "anti-Israel lobby" is working hard to get this page deleted. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Claims by POV parties in the article stated as facts I am in favor of keep or merge, however whole article needs to be neutralised per its claims of POV or COI parties' accusations in the article which are presented as facts. It should be applied as argued by ... for claims. Kasaalan (talk) 16:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Good point, it repeats claims by POV parties as fact. It also misquotes sources.


 * For example, calling the American Friends Service Committee "anti-Israel" is absurd propaganda. But more important, it's not supported by the verifiable link.


 * It's propaganda. The propaganda message is, "There's a pro-Israel lobby article, so let's answer it with an anti-Israel lobby article. They haven't supported the premise that there is an anti-Israel lobby in the U.S.


 * I would delete any article, whether I agreed with it or not, if it had propaganda motives and problems of bias and factual verification as bad as this one. --Nbauman (talk) 16:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Reporting claims as facts without attributing is not a valid reason to delete - and has a very simple solution - go ahead and attribute the claims, per the suggestion by Kasaalan, above. I hope you realize that by making this argument (i.e: that these are verifiable claims, which are reported as fact instead of being attributed) you are implicitly conceding the notability of the subject, and the fact that the term has been used, as such, by multiple sources. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 17:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no such implication, whether or not the term has been used is not the point here. Is it a neutral point of view to call any of the organizations listed in the article "anti-Israel"? Is that how they are usually classified? A few opinion columns saying they are "anti-Israel" is not sufficient to label them as such.  nableezy  - 17:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, several of the "delete" voter have made an issue of the usage of the term - see sloat or paswordusername, above. The references provided, which include academic publications, do explicitly refer to an "anti-Israel Lobby", and do name several individuals and organizations as belonging to such a lobby. You may think they are incorrect, or that their opinion is not neutral - but that is not a reason for deletion. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 17:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Reporting claims as facts, while attributing them to a source that doesn't support those claims -- as this article did for the American Friends Service Committee -- is a reason to delete the article.


 * We can't attribute the claims, because there are no WP:RS to support the claim that the AFSC is an anti-Israel organization. --Nbauman (talk) 04:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Suggestion Instead vastly discussing and wasting time, if all parties work together we may improve the article to correct the NPOV issues and claims.
 * My solution is per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_East_Quarterly#Criticism and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Report_on_Middle_East_Affairs#Criticism keeping the criticism however adressing the critical parties political stance. Kasaalan (talk) 18:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * But why improve an unacceptably titled article instead of using it to improve superior, already existing articles that it is a pov fork of? (Wikipedia is all about vastly discussing and wasting time. ;) ). Cheers,John Z (talk) 21:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * POV titles, assuming this is one, are dealt with by de-POVing the title, not by deleting the article.LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 22:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * POV-forks are dealt with by deleting the article.  nableezy  - 22:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. But I don't agree that this is a POV fork - the references in the article explicitly reject the notion that the anti-Israel lobby is the same as the Pro-Arab lobby. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 23:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Where is the explicit rejection? This ref I put on the talk page supports the identification.  Of course the pov-forking is not perfect, but that combined with an offensive title strongly indicates redirection at best.  De-poving the title would give it a title like Arab lobby or Anti-Zionism, which already exist.John Z (talk) 23:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It is here: "We use the term "Israel detractor" rather than pro-Arab because injuring the Jewish state, not aiding Arabs, defines the core agenda of most of these individuals and groups" - this is from the most heavily cited reference used in the article, and appears in the lead  - don't tell me you haven't even bothered to read the article before arguing so vociferously for its deletion? LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 23:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * They are talking about the same organizations but they are choosing to use a pejorative way of referring to them. And why are we basing the classification of these groups on an opinion piece by an AIPAC director, an organization that clearly sees these groups as political adversaries. Most informed people do not refer to these organizations as anti-Israel, and to insist that we do so based on the opinions of their opponents is mind-numingly retarded.  nableezy  - 23:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think that it is true that they are talking about the same organizations and individuals. I don't think that Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, for example, are considered by anyone to be part of an "Arab Lobby", and I am quite sure they would reject such classification. Similarly, I don't think the American Friends Service Committee is reasonably part of the "Arab Lobby". There is certainly a large overlap between the groups, but they are not one and the same, and this is a point explicitly made by the references given in the article. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 23:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It has already been said that calling the American Friends Service Committee as part of an anti-Israel lobby is ridiculous. And how about the National Association of Arab Americans, Arab American Institute, American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, Palestine Center, CAIR, American Muslim Council, Muslim Public Affairs Council, Palestinian American Congress, Palestine Solidarity Movement? Almost the entire article is Arab and Muslim organizations that AIPAC feels are not pro-Israel. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 00:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's certainly been said by some wikipedia editors, but the standard we use for articles is verifiability and notability, not veracity of the claims. You may think it is ridiculous to consider the American Friends Service Committee as part of an anti-Israel lobby , but frankly, your personal opinion does not figure in this. Those claiming an anti-Israel lobby exists separately from a pro-Arab lobby are making that claim - we can verify that claim and see it made in notable sources - that's the end of that discussion. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 00:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You didnt respond to the fact that the overwhelming majority of this article is labeling Arab and Muslim groups as anti-Israel when they are not usually labeled as such. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 01:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Should we have an anti-White lobby page about the NAACP, the SPLC and other organizations based on the writings of David Duke? Should we have an anti-Arab lobby page filled with AIPAC, Daniel Pipes and every other organization that has been called such based on the writings of an Arab lobbyist? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 23:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If we have a body of literature that describes the NAACP and the SPLC as an anti-White lobby, which includes chapters in academic books and numerous articles in the press, I don't see why we wouldn't have such articles. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 23:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not consider that a good reference for the existence of "Those claiming an anti-Israel lobby exists separately from a pro-Arab lobby", unlike the one I gave, which explicitly identifies the two. As I pointed out on the talk page,  "Israel detractor" is not the same as "anti-Israel Lobby", a phrase which Lewis never uses, and which brings up OR problems.  Lewis emphasizes the lack of cohesiveness of the "Israel detractors", and is more listing them than characterizing them the way the article does, as a lobby.  If you don't like arab lobby, anti-zionism is an acceptable, non offensive redirect target.  The reason not to have such articles is because titles should be neutral, not attack the subject matter and not in themselves propound fringe viewpoints on material well covered in other articles.  Does anyone really think that calling these pro-arab organizations, the AFSC, etc primarily devoted to injuring Israel rather than their stated purposes is not a fringe view, similar to calling the NAACP anti-white? John Z (talk) 00:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * From the top: The reference you gave does not say the two are the same, it uses an "or" to differentiate between them. There are other reference in the article which to explicitly use the term "anti-Israel lobby" AND say that what identifies that lobby is hurting Israel, not promoting Arab interests, such as the Caroline Glick JPost article. This is not about what I "like" or "dislike" - it is about referring to things as reliable sources refer to them. You can continue to believe that a chapter in an academic book by a Yale professor is a "fringe view", but I don't find that assertion very convincing, and neither did Rowman & Littlefield. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 00:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * User:LoverOfTheRussianQueen seems to forget that WP:RS is only one of tenants of WIkipedia. WP:Neutral Point of View, WP:No Original Research andWP:Biographies_of_living_persons are equaly important and can be used to question whether "WP:RS" sources can be used and how they can be used. See: List_of_policies. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I have not forgotten those policies - it's just that these excuses were not brought up before. In fact, this constant moving of the goal-posts makes it seems as if some people are intent on getting this deleted no matter what - and are throwing any and all WP policies in the hope that something, anything, might stick. When this was nominated for deletion, the reason was WP:FORK. When it transpired that there is no article this was forked from (indeed, the various "delete" voters can't seem to even agree what this was forked from, mentioning alternatively Anti-Zionism, Arab lobby in the United States or even Israel lobby in the United States ), it was alleged this is an attack page. When that didn't stick, claims about notability were raised ('not a notable concept', 'no scholarly treatment of it'), and when they were easily shown to be false, you are now trying WP:Neutral Point of View, WP:No Original Research and WP:Biographies_of_living_persons. If there are BLP violations, remove them from the article. If you think a particular passage violates WP:Neutral Point of View or WP:No Original Research - discuss it on the talk page and find consensus for an improved version. Just throwing out an alphabet soup of polices in the hope something sticks won't cut it. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 02:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Not brought up before? The nomination brings up using opinion pieces for derogatory claims directed against living people, and my first comment after bings up WP:NPOV in using a term to describe these groups that is not at all in keeping with the mainstream description of them. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 02:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * KEEP This is an article about a large, well-established, powerful, and well-documented single-issue lobby, similar to the many other articles about single-issue lobbies in the United States.   There is a rapidly-growing body of academic work on the subject.  Growing, that is, to catch up with the dynamic nature and rapid growth of this lobby in recent years.   The material in this article cannot be folded into Arab lobby in the United States since important groups such as the political arms of several very active Protestant churches and the Council for the National Interest are not Arab.   And, while Anti-Zionism exists, it covers a great deal of terrain while this is an article about a coalition of political lobbying organizations in the U.S., and about the political lobbying activities of a number of organizations that also conduct other activities.   It does not seem to me very different from articles on the Energy lobby, the China Lobby, the Cuban-American lobby, or the Pro-Israel lobby in the United States, although it is better sourced than some single-issue lobby articles.  On the other hand, I can see some logic in merging this and Pro-Israel lobby in the United States into a single article entitled  Middle East lobbying in the United States as proposed above.Historicist (talk) 01:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Considering how many nations there are in the Middle East, with how many factions, with how many lobbies, definitely an overly large article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and Delete Merge any NPOV part into relevant existing articles and delete rest as per WP:POVFORK--LexCorp (talk) 02:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)'
 * Delete. The idea that these organizations have the sole motivation of opposing Israel is a very biased point-of-view, which one can see from the sources chosen to support this article. If someone created a Pro-Palestinian lobby article, that might be worth keeping. Factsontheground (talk) 10:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: The whole article is made up and is attacking several Arab and Muslim organizations. The term "Anti-Israel lobby in the United States" does not exist.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: Almost every word on the page is merely a pronouncement of some pro-Israeli source. It is clear that that is the actual purpose of the page.  Any notable quotes (of which there are very few) should be added to the article on the pro-Israel lobby as examples of their work.  If Israel lobby in the United States was barely more than a bulletin board for anti-Isael opinion, it wouldn't last 48 hours.  This one shouldn't either. Zerotalk 12:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep but improve: Although the article is, as it stands, not sufficiently neutral I feel deletion would be overstepping what is necessary. Furthermore the Arab lobby and the Anti-Israel lobby are not necessarily exactly the same and so I think a merge is inappropriate.Simonm223 (talk) 18:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The article has been significantly lengthened since many of the votes were cast.  Assertions that this is a neologism, or that that the phenomenon of an anti-Israel lobby does not exist do not reflect the sourcing in the article, which includes a substantial number of scholarly books and scholarly articles.  There will be more  materail, as I or others have time, since the anti-Israel lobby is a well-documented topic.Historicist (talk) 19:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Biophys and Historicist. Article is well-sourced and a legitimate topic, and is not a POV fork.  Most of the "delete" arguments really amount to WP:IDONTLIKEIT.  6SJ7 (talk) 21:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. There is some useful content here, which could be merged to Israel lobby in the United States. But mostly this is an attack page, violates WP:SYNTH, a quite extraordinary collection of garbage (American Friends Service Committee - and Quakers in geneneral - have a long history of opposing antisemitism) with an unacceptable POV title. I agree with Zero that it is a WP:COATRACK for so-called "pro-Israel" claims. NSH001 (talk) 06:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * KEEP and Improve - Article is about a strong and influential single-issue lobby; Wikipedia has many similar articles about single-issue lobbies. AND, we should keep in mind that there is an article on the Israel lobby in the United States so I do not see why there shouldn't be an article on this lobby.  Afterall it lobbies for many positions that the Israel lobby is against. --Nsaum75 (talk) 07:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I have rewritten the first half of the article, in a (probably vain) attempt to stick to the facts and put the opinions in quotes. Perhaps this rewrite will convince some of you that there is material here worth saving.  Whatever you do, don't read past "Prestatehood era". --Ravpapa (talk) 08:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as a flagrant attack page and violation (even in the title) of WP:NPOV; it's one of the worst WP:NPOV violations I've seen in a long time. Some of the content may be salvageable for other article(s), but I'm not immediately sure where. One thing is clear: we cannot allow groups who self-define "pro-Israel" to label a bunch of other organisations as "anti-Israel" as if that was their stated objective. And that's effectively what this article is doing. Rd232 talk 08:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * So, it's ok to say "pro-Israel" but not ok to say "anti-Israel"? 6SJ7 (talk) 20:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Organisations that self-define as pro/anti-Israel should be described as that. But "anti-Israel" is obviously a negative in a way that "pro-Israel" isn't, and a lot mroe care needs to be taken in applying it to people and organisations who reject the label. But I guess it was a really a rhetorical question. Rd232 talk 20:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep As should any article be if the only reason is PoV. An article title can be changed to remove PoV, the content can be changed to replace or remove PoV. If nothing consequential remains of the article, it can be deleted under WP:N, which along with WP:OR are the only major -content- rules that the drafters of WP:DELETION saw fit to include as reasons for deleting -articles-. Stop the madness. Anarchangel (talk) 11:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The decision to put an organization on the page, unless that organization self-describes as anti-Israel (which I think none of them do), is obviously OR. Most of them are opposed to some aspect of Israeli policy or practice; describing that as "anti-Israel" is just a standard propaganada stunt. Zerotalk 02:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - The term is widely used and well sourced. There is no reason to delete except WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Rlendog (talk) 01:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and neutralize so the article will be beyond accusations of bias and of existing only for the sake of being critical. It is off to a good start, well-cited and with cleanup underway.  With proper care taken not to use pov language in WP's own voice, this is a legitimate article and topic. Hertz1888 (talk) 03:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Merge and redirect to Israel lobby in the United States; some material may be merged into Arab lobby in the United States, American Israel Public Affairs Committee, Council on American-Islamic Relations, Anti-Zionism, and/or elsewhere where appropriate (see commentary below for thought process of revised position) - I usually avoid this topic like the plague because of the zealotry it evokes. For the record, I don't have a dog in this fight, so to speak, so I consider myself an impartial observer. However, there is no sound argument for deletion of this and keeping of Pro-Israel lobby in the United States. I think both are important topics and require discussion. While the article itself may or may not be biased (and AFD is not the place for that discussion), the topic itself is clearly notable. The term "anti-Israel lobby" is used verbatim in respectable sources cited in the article such as the Wall Street Journal and the Boston Globe. Other mentions not cited have occured in The Washington Post, The New York Times, and The Guardian. The suggestion to merge the two is also flawed. Communism and anti-communism are both ideologies diametrically opposed (or communism/fascism or fascism/anti-fascism), but that doesn't mean they should be merged into one discussion. The delete votes, however, for the most part boil down to either "I don't like it" or POV, which isn't a criteria for deletion. Strikehold (talk) 03:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Both of the links provided are opinion pieces and the google news result is mostly filled with op-eds as well. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 03:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And I would counter, respectfully, so what? While it is certainly not our place to editorialize, it is indeed our place to report opinions, as long as it is clearly attributed as such. Even in editorials, respectable news sources generally don't print disreputable opinions, even though they clearly are opinions. The term "anti-American", for instance, is not likely to be used by a news source without qualification as it can be a charged term. However, that doesn't (and shouldn't) preclude an article on anti-Americanism. To be clear, I wouldn't object to merging this to Anti-Zionism and merging Israel lobby in the United States to Zionism, as both are fairly reasonable places to put that information. But if that is the option, then it would probably require discussion on an RFC or something. For that reason, I think this AFD should be closed as "keep". Strikehold (talk) 03:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is we are using these editorials to label groups and people as anti-Israel when they are not labeled that by most commentators. Why should we use the term "anti-Israel" which is primarily used by self-described pro-Israel groups to label a group that is usually described as pro-Arab or pro-Palestinian? Why not have anti-Arab lobby in the United States or anti-Palestinian lobby in the United States or anti-Muslim lobby in the United States and include AIPAC or other organizations based on the opinions of Juan Cole, or CAIR directors? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 04:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Your argument is a reasonable one and those examples provide a better analog than others (although anti-Palestine, not -Palestinian, would be the best parallel, as this article is not after all called the anti-Israeli or anti-Jew lobby). The op-eds may be a bit tenuous as sources for a standalone article, but the fact that this lobby is purported to exist merits mention somewhere else, certainly at Anti-Zionism, maybe elsewhere. I'm revising my position to that of merge with Israel lobby in the United States, and as necessary, other articles. I know that is not an option you personally favor, but It seems rational as even the article itself says the "anti-Israel lobby" arose as a counterweight to pro-Israeli interests. Strikehold (talk) 04:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That actually is my position (see nom ;)), that they have been called this should be mentioned in the respective articles but compiling a list of organizations called "anti-Israel" by some editorials is what I take issue with. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 04:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I misread the original "radical suggestion" merge vote and your response to it. Pieces of this article could be merged into Arab lobby and Israel lobby. Don't think any single article is best for a wholescale merger. Best to break it up piecemeal and put where appropriate. Strikehold (talk) 04:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep The article is well-written and thoroughly documented with dozens of sources, and the term is used as is in multiple reliable and verifiable sources which establish independent notability of the term. Alansohn (talk) 04:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If it's kept with that sort of logic (rather than merged, as argued by a number of people), then it needs to be radically stubbed to merely document the general term, and avoid the obvious WP:NPOV problem of labelling people "anti-X" on the basis of views coming from people self-avowedly "pro-X". Rd232 talk 06:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Evidently notable. I might support a move to the more general Anti-Israel lobby, but that's a different disscussion for a differnet day. What's clear at this point is that there's no legitimate basis for removing the artilce since WP:IDONTLIKEIT has yet to be accepted as a valid deletion argument. Any specific POV concerns should be rectified by this cool thing called editing, not wholesale deletion.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 07:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * comment: most groups don't self-identify as 'anti-'israel, they are classified by what they support: pro gun control, not anti-gun, pro abstinence, not anti-sex.   even anti-abortion redirects to pro life.  untwirl (talk) 07:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * While I voted merge, I don't think your examples are comparable. Those are all the result of politically motivated framing. That presupposes that just because a group self-identifies one way that it makes such an identification useful or accurate. A case in point is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, a state which a reasonable person can see is none of those three things. Strikehold (talk) 07:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this is the same type of framing; one "side" is determining how to frame the issue, it is pro vs anti-Israel instead of pro vs anti-Palestine. It is the same idea behind "pro-life" or "anti-choice" (or even more subtly "pro-choice" and "pro-abortion"). but I have made way too many comments in this AfD, so I think it is time for me to check out <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 07:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree that it is the same type of framing. Doubtlessly, some individuals/groups which are pro-Palestine are indeed anti-Israel, insofar as they are against the very existence of the state of Israel (i.e. Anti-Zionism). I think very few people could accurately be described as "anti-choice" or "anti-life" (and that is the reason for framing in that way). That means that the term "anti-Israel" can be factual, whereas something like "pro-life" is intentionally emotional—but the term anti-Zionism is probably better used in this case anyway. Now, whether a particular person/group is anti-Israel is a matter of debate unto itself, but I think the material can best be put forth in an evenhanded manner in the separate Israel and Arab lobby articles. On that point we agree, and as you said, probably best to end this line of discussion and stop wasting bandwidth. Strikehold (talk) 08:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, NSH001 and Rd232. If someone wants to have the page userfied to retrieve some of the information for inclusion in existing articles such as Arab lobby in the United States, Israel lobby in the United States and articles on individual organizations, they are welcome to. Those articles are named correctly. This one is named so as to reflect the POV of the Israel lobby. Most of the groups named reject the label "anti-Israel" and grouping them under such a label violated WP:NCON as they do not self-identify as such. If article is to be kept, prepare to see articles on the Anti-Palestine lobby in the US, the Anti-Arab lobby in the US, the Anti-Armenian lobby in the US, etc, etc., which use op-eds from the Palestinian, Arab and Armenian communities to label their opponents anti-them and which rely heavily on SYNTH to do so. In other words, keeping the article would set a very bad precedent out of line with Wiki policies and guidelines.  T i a m u t talk 08:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment first of all pro-Israel lobby in US renamed to Israel lobby in US. anti-Israel lobby is kind of confusing name. Do anti-Israel lobby is anti Israel by states' existence. Or do anti-Israel lobby is anti pro-Israel lobby in US as its lead. Or in general terms anti-Israel lobby means anti Israel right-wing politics. So somehow that should be cleared. Also self-statedly "Israel defender and advocate" groups like Anti-Defamation League or obviously POV and unacademic journals like Middle East Quarterly should also be noted in the text as underlining their political stance, and not to be misinterpreted as 3rd party organizations, views or as scholar parties. Kasaalan (talk) 11:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, the notion that any form of criticism of Israeli state policy or human rights abuses committed by the State of Israel would be 'anti-Israeli' (or motivated by anti-Semitism...) is a political pov discourse. The article itself does not support the notion that there is a real life feature that can be called 'anti-Israeli lobby'. It's a bit like rebranding the Free Tibet movement as 'anti-China lobby', using Xinhua or the CPC international department as references. --Soman (talk) 15:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. Most of the delete votes lately seem to object more to the title, than to the actual content. The article (now almost entirely rewritten) covers a group of organizations that form a lobby for the pro-Palestinian or pro-Arab position in the Middle East conflict.  But the term "anti-Israel lobby" is - quite understandably - objectionable.


 * The difficulty here, as I have pointed out before, is that that is how the lobby is referred to in the press. If we were to call the article, for example, "Palestinian lobby in the United States", it is unlikely that anyone would find it.  What's more, many of the organizations don't seem to view themselves as pro-Palestinian, but rather advocate "balance" in American policy.  So even this name change doesn't solve the problem.


 * It seems to me that a bad name is not enough of a reason to throw the article out, especially since it covers what I believe to be an important phenomenon in US politics today. What's more, leaders of this group - James Zogby, for example - have agreed with me (see his quote in the article).  So here is the challenge: come up with a better name. --Ravpapa (talk) 16:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment There should be 3 separate articles or 3 categories (under 1-2 article). Anti-semitism which is racially motivated hate against Jews and a crime, anti-Israel political or any other objections against existence of Israel, and anti-Israel (right-wing) politics, anti-Israel government lobby or anti pro-Israel lobby (including jewish and Israel community by Israeli-left and some orthodox torah jews) for lobbyists and activists against Israel politics or human rights abuse. For example anti-semitism is a serious argument that should be taken with care, tough anti-Israel may also cover anti-Israel existence (which is a rare case) while it should generally refer to anti-Israel (war or lobby) politics. Kasaalan (talk) 16:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Kasaalan, that is an interesting analysis, but I don't quite see the relevance to this article. None of the organizations mentioned are characterized as antisemitic.  Nor are they dealing directly with Middle East politics, but rather with US support for Israeli policies - a subtle difference, I admit, but an important one.


 * BTW, Kasaalan, I must say that after going head to head with you on so many articles, it's good to be on the same side (almost) for once. --Ravpapa (talk) 16:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * One way or another there are organizations against existence of Israel, or against Israel's (not much peace friendly) politics, so an article with proper notes and categorizations might help
 * My policies doesn't change much, if the title, reference and claim issues will be fixed, I am in favor of keeping info (as a merge or as separate article) as my progressive voting approach. That won't change according to my political stance or personal thoughts on the issue. Yet as I noted earlier the issues should be fixed, after this debate over I may edit for accuracy, yet I will wait for a consensus first. Kasaalan (talk) 18:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, Kasaalan's definition of 'anti-Israel' ('political or any other objections against existence of Israel') is covered by anti-Zionism. --Soman (talk) 17:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete This is a very poorly sourced articles. The majority of citations do not say "anti-Israel" in any way, rather it is the creator of this article who has decided that certain statements are evidence of "anti-Israel" sentiment.  Thus a lot of this is original research unfortunately.  --John Bahrain (talk) 17:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The article has many footnotes. They document sundry topics, including the date of establishment, history, rhetoric and self-described positions of these lobbying organizations.  However, a careful reader will find a great may uses in the article of the phrase "anti-Israel lobby,"  including a number of cases in which one careless editor/reader or another above or on the talk page, or when making deletion comments has incorrectly asserted that this phrase "does not appear."Historicist (talk) 18:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Rename to "Opposition to the Israel lobby in the United States" &mdash;Ashley Y 18:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Anti-Israel lobby. The difficulty with Ashley's suggestion is that these organizations do not merely oppose the Pro-Israel lobby.  Several openly oppose the existence of the state of  Israel altogether. I might wish that they would only oppose  the lobby, rather than supporting the elimination of a nation of 6 million people.  However, since that is what several of them do propose and lobby for, it is a trifle, er... reductionist, to call this an article on an an anti-lobby, lobby.   And while we are on the topic.  At the article Israel lobby in the United States, there is an active discussion about moving the name to Pro-Israel lobby in the United States, in conformity with, among other things, the current usage style of the Washington Post and the New York Times.Historicist (talk) 18:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually Ashley's Opposition to the Israel lobby in the United States idea is perfect since there are lots of groups against it who have a variety of views on the final states. Only a small number of organized groups want there to be no Israel at all and they should have their own article Organizations calling for abolition of Israel or something. Of course those groups might have 500 million supporters, but they are not necessarily the leading groups. And there all ready is One-state solution and that state is not usually called Israel - yet none of those groups are mentioned, including various Muslim/Arab groups representing millions. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In that case, we shall have to delete all sections about any organisation that does not explicitly call for the elimination of the State of Israel. Right now you're trying to have it both ways, by including organisations that merely oppose the excessive degree of influence that the Israel lobby has, but also calling them "anti-Israel". &mdash;Ashley Y 09:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge, Revise significantly or Delete. This is the second time I have come across these debates, of which i am normally not a part. I find the way these articles are put together unacceptable for an encyclopedia. This article appears editorialised and biased, despite the efforts of some editors to improve it. For example, the history begins with "Opponents of unqualified US support of Israel started political lobbying..." Why on earth would we equate opposition to unqualified support of Israel with being "anti-Israel"? Later on there is a list of "organizations and individuals involved in US lobbying for pro-Arab and pro-Palestinian issues in the Middle East". This should be deleted, as these are not anti-Israel groups. People can be supporters of Israel's existence but condemn the Gaza incursion etc etc etc. Here's another bit, from the history section again: "Among the leaders of pro-Palestinian action groups in Washington are the members of..." Again, not relevant, and POV-pushing. One can be pro-Palestinian without being anti-Israel. Making such connections in an article with such an inflamatory title is surely blatant POV-pushing - as it would be in an article of the opposite arrangement.
 * My second concern is that this and some other similar articles are put together by finding people who express relevant views and then by citing them claiming that the article has reliable sources. For example, the article includes this: "Caroline Glick, managing editor of the Jerusalem Post, writes in an opinion column that recent years have seen "the emergence of a very committed and powerful anti-Israel lobby in Washington."" Well, if I can be provocative here for a moment, who cares? This is a subject on which every opinion writer in the world has to have a view, and no-one is backward in coming forward, sometimes with evidence, mostly without it, and really their opinions, whether pro-Israeli, pro-Arab or whatever are not, in and of themselves, of any consequence. This is an encyclopedia, its entries should be based on facts and, particularly in such an emotionally charged environment, scholarly research and through the selection of sources that are as NPOV as possible. It is not helped by quoting as many people of a particular view as possible, regardless what they edit, who they write for etc. Even though the above quote is from a section called "Response of Israeli supporters", it appears to be functioning as a way of bringing those opinions into the article. An encyclopedia article needs to do more than catalogue the views that anyone can find in the opinion pages of just about every news outlet in the world. And to preempt one of the type of responses that I've seen on the talk pages - "So I guess you would have the same view about [insert name of anti-Arab lobby WP entry here]?" - yes I would and I do. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a good summary of the issues. Zerotalk 01:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - fine example of Mertensian mimicry (editorial synthesis posing as an encyclopedia article). Óðinn (talk) 03:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename as per Ashley's ingenious suggestion. Opposition to the Israel lobby in the United States - why didn't I think of that? And also...
 * a Comment: Do those who support deleting the article believe that there is no organized attempt by some lobby groups to change US policy toward the Middle East, in a way that is less supportive of Israel and more supportive of the Palestinians and Arab countries? Because if you think that, you are wrong, and not only myself, but the people cited in the article - James Zogby, Rashid Khalidi, Ziad Asali, and others - think this.  Zogby is quoted as saying this.


 * There was, when this article was first written, a serious problem that it was attributed almost entirely to sources associated with the Israeli lobby. Whether the information was true or not, the source was, quite rightly, dubious.  That is no longer the case.  Almost all the information about the organizations themselves, as well as much of the information on the history and activities of the lobby, comes from sources affiliated with the lobby - the organization websites, or publications of the organizations.  This lends a great deal more credibility and impartiality to the article.


 * And, while I'm on a roll here, I have to disagree with Historicist: All references to the desire of these organizations to see the destruction of Israel has been deleted. None of the organizations have this as their stated purpose, and I have not seen any evidence that they are working toward that goal. If you have such evidence, please share it with us. --Ravpapa (talk) 09:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Absoultely such a lobby exists, it is widely known as the Arab lobby in the United States. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 17:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, but this article includes not only Arab groups. And it doesn't deal with any of the other issues which interest Arab American lobbyists - civil rights, the war in Iraq, and so on. --Ravpapa (talk) 18:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And that's the problem -- this article puts a bunch of groups in a category based on one aspect of their lobbying. If these organizations are exclusively devoted to self-described "Anti-Israel" lobbying then there may be something here, but as far as I can tell these are generally organizations with a number of interests and goals, one or a few of which some outside party has determined to be "anti-Israel." Calling these organizations part of an "anti-Israel lobby" -- particularly when most of them would not even describe their goals as "anti-Israel" -- is the essence of original research. csloat (talk) 19:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - Article is a legitimate topic. Well sourced. There is pro-Israeli lobbying in the United States, along with anti-Israeli lobbying, and this article describes it and is sourced. - Epson291 (talk) 09:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Just so everyone knows, this is an AFD and not a survey for moving. If this article is kept we should probably have another discussion about the title, but mixing the two is really going to clutter things up. Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge or Delete - One of two settlements can be reached here which don't result in this being nothing more than an attack page (which it is currently). The first option is to combine it with the Israel Lobby page and title it something along the lines of Israel-Palestine Conflict in the United States, or something to that effect. If that is not done, then it remains little more than an attack page, with the personal attacks and remarks to thoroughly worked into the text to warrant anything other than deletion. Cam (Chat) 13:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - This article is certainly based in fact, and there is some material worth salvaging. Unfortunately, I don't see much possibility that it could ever meet BLP standards, and maintenance would be an utter nightmare. In my opinion the scales are tipped against this one. Doc  Tropics  15:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * UltraKeep2000™ or Merge with the other article to "Israel related lobbies in the United States". Can't have one propaganda group without the other and both have similar notability (aleigt the "Jewish Lobby" is more of a smear campaign than an actual policy changing group).  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  17:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: I am changing my vote from keep to delete, in light of recent developments in the article. I need to explain myself. So this will be a long post.  Fasten your seatbelts.


 * This article started out attempting to raise an important development in American politics. Unfortunately, it came out reading like a diatribe against what the authors viewed as a band of cuthroats masquerading in gray suits, who wanted to fill the Mediterranean with Jewish blood.


 * Because I felt that the topic was an important one, I took it upon myself to rewrite this article from top to toe. The rewritten article, I felt, was about the development of a new lobbying power in Washington, a power that opposed unqualified support by the US government for Israel, and endorsed a US position that favored other forces in the Middle East.


 * Make no mistake: this is a tectonic change in American politics. Opposition to Israeli lobbying power has moved from the fringes to the mainstream.  Lobby groups that are among the oldest and most respected in Washington - the AFSC, for example - have been joined by a recently empowered ethnic Arab-American community, to protest what they see as human rights violations by Israel, and to urge support for an alternate, and more aggressive, peace program for Israel and the Palestinians.  Many of these organizations (like MPAC) have, at least formally, renounced older, extremist positions to support a more centrist view which still opposes US support for Israeli policies.


 * But it seems that this version of the article was not to be. Because in the last day, the article has again been heavily revised, so that it is no longer about the growth of an alternate lobbying view in Washington.  Now the article is focused almost entirely on the use of the term "anti_Israeli" by right-wing Israelis and their supporters.  Lobbying groups that were among the most important leaders of this shift in American politics were deleted, because these new editors could not find explicit cases where pro-Israeli spokesmen referred to the organizations as "anti-Israeli".  On the other hand, they added cases which had nothing to do with American political lobbying - for example, they added a paragraph about the Wikipedia (not a lobbyist) because a Jerusalem Post (also not a lobbyist) editorial called it anti-Israeli.


 * Many of the complaints of this group of editors, I must admit, were mysterious to me. They put "citation needed" tags on sentences immediately following the footnote.  Claiming BLP violations, they deleted paragraphs where no living persons were mentioned.


 * Never mind. The article is no longer about a new lobbying power arising in US politics, but about the presumably derogatory use of a term by a group of people with a very limited political viewpoint. Why this topic should be of interest to anyone is beyond me.  But there you have it.  That is apparently what these editors want to write about.


 * It is obviously not a topic worthy of coverage by Wikipedia.


 * Incidentally, if anyone should ever be of like opinion to me, and want to write about this new political force, I have saved a version of the article prior to the lastest round of revisions in my userspace, at [].


 * Regards, --Ravpapa (talk) 06:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's basically why I voted delete. An article on this "new political force" would be useful, definitely, but it cannot live under this name, as the experience you've related above illustrates, besides the obvious NPOV issues. Rd232 talk 10:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * By the by, an article on that "new political force" would obviously need to refer to J Street, a key player not mentioned in the article. Rd232 talk 10:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

What is consensus now?
Outdent Comment, There is no apparent consensus on the original AfD, and it isn't my call, but I have changed my vote above from ‘Delete’ to Pending. This is despite the fact that I first raised the red flag. My change is based on: a) positive content changes, which have moved away from the original ‘Attack Page’ that its author wrote; b) the simple fact that these groups/people absolutely do exist, and more; and c) many good expressions of thought by contributors and on-lookers, particularly one by Kasaalan; he makes some very valid points pointing to some missing content. I view some future articles similarly.

My current tendency is to Rename, per Ashley Y’s Opposition to the Israel lobby in the United States".  It complies with policy in a neutral nutshell, while removing most implied anti- or pro-specifics and maintaining the lobbying subject.  I too find it ironic that I am tending to agree with traditional opponents.  The question is currently not a real consensus question of ‘if’ editors delete it or keep it; it is now a valid consensus question of just exactly ‘what’ we keep.  Really, everyone should read it again, while they consider both what is stated poorly from their pov, and what is RS'd ‘out there’ versus what is on the page.  It is hard to build consensus if any specific modifier is used within the title; those specifics are the sections themselves, with many valid pre-existing links. Frankly, merging the two is a bigger bite than Wiki can happily chew; I doubt it would result in any real benefit for the readers either. Sincerely, CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 13:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC) N.B. between the time I make the note of a change in my vote and made this comment, my ISP crashed...for hours. In that time major changes were made in the article, which caused Ravpapa sufficient consternation to change his vote. My suggestion now looks less-than-workable, but it still may be. I was seeing possibilities and could revert Carol, but I am unsure if I should; she shoots pretty srtaight. I do however wonder if using that ex-editors aim is the best way to approach things in current times.


 * Hi CasualObserver48. Just a quick comment. Israel lobby in the United States can cover the Israel lobby, and its supporters and detractors. Another article would just be a POV fork.  T i a m u t talk 13:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with Tiamut. The important stuff here can be a footnote to the Israel lobby article. csloat (talk) 18:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * KEEP But write a better article.  Obviously the phenomenon, of a large, well-funded anti-Israel lobby, exists.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.96.4 (talk) 18:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete A total non-subject; no nontrivial coverage of the "Anti-Israel lobby" exists in any reliable published sources. Article has obviously been cobbled together by scraping trivial references from Google results. Typical case of internecine Wikipedian conflict (to put it crudely, Jewish editors who don't like the existence of an article about the Israeli lobby) being expressed by creation of nonsense in mainspace, à la the "Allegations of Apartheid" series from way back. 69.159.87.158 (talk) 00:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge. Let me explain - my contribution above said merge or rewrite or delete, so I'm a real fence-sitter. And I note Wikifan's remark above, but I think this discussion has to happen here nevertheless. I have noted the contributions, many of them useful. To the unsigned comment immediately above, actually, no, as far as I can see "a large, well-funded anti-Israel lobby" does not exist. A significant lobby exists that is critical of US policy toward Israel, and critical of some Israeli domestic and international policy in the region. Almost no anti-Israel lobby appears to exist in the US. However the "important stuff here" (Commodore Sloat) can hardly be merely a footnote to the Israel lobby article. It is significant material. I think the best solution is to merge two articles into a single article. This is essentially Ravpapa's early suggestion in this AfD discussion, which had support from several other editors at that stage. The two to be merged are Israel lobby in the United States and Anti-Israel lobby in the United States (I realise there may be other articles tangentially involved, but these two are the key). The new article would be defined as being about "groups and individuals who influence United States foreign policy regarding Israel and its policies" (modification of a lead sentence in current 'Israel lobby in the United States'). The remaining question would be the title of the article. Ravpapa's suggestion was 'Middle East lobbying in the United States', however while I see his point, i wondered whether that title is too broad - there are plenty of countries and a few other issues in the Middle East than Israel alone. I think a case could be made for using the title 'Israel lobby in the United States' for all the material, since all of the lobbying we are discussing relates to Israel, and none of it (or almost none) is actually anti-Israel (by which I mean explicitly opposing the existence of Israel). However, I recognise that this might be seen as inconsistent with everyday usage of terms. If that is an insurmountable issue amongst editors, then I would probably lean toward Ravpapa's early suggestion. For what it's worth, I was sympathetic to some of Ravpapa's attempts to improve the article but, bottom line, the current article's title is an inherent problem. The groups Ravpapa was talking about just aren't anti Israel, and the title currently (and in future) will consistently provoke edit wars and be seen as in itself POV-pushing (which in my view it is, since the groups, I think I'm repeating myself here, are not anti-Israel). hamiltonstone (talk) 01:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Nbauman and Zero. Paul kuiper NL (talk) 01:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.